It might not be up for debate to you, but the fact remains that your statement is bogus.

Instead of being a myrmidon, why not just read what I say, take a minute to comprehend it?

A centrifugal supercharger happens to share the same compressor technology of a turbo. In fact, it is essentially identical to a turbocharger in operation, but for one big factor - the manner in which it builds boost.

It needs a belt to turn the compressor wheel. As the RPMs increase, so does the compressor wheel speed, since it is attached to it directly. This means it takes nearly the entire RPM band to achieve full boost, boost increases exponentially as the engine speed increases. It does not have the ability to produce boost in low rpms. The advantage here only being that it does have the ability to produce some boost instantly when you get back on the pedal.

A turbo can achieve the necessary compressor speeds with the ability to produce significant levels of boost pressure at very low rpms. Boost is produced exponentially only in this small threshold window, depending on the size of the turbo. From that point on, let's say 2000RPM, the turbo will continue to produce the same boost level throughout the entire remainder of the rpm band. The disadvantage here being that it takes a moment to respool the turbo when you get back on the throttle, however, full boost can still be achieved at low rpms.

So yes, while they do share the same types of compressors and the way they pack air molecules together is identical, the method in which they do makes them completely different animals. A turbo will have a torque output more similar to your coveted M62, with the efficiency of the centrifugal compressor.

So don't act like I'm the one not willing to accept when you can't even understand the clear difference between the two. Or you could go back and look at the dyno comparison I posted and asked you to take a look at 17 times, but then why stop being a stubborn fool now?